Obama's speech in Berlin

fuck

RainDog wrote:

No I don't; but thankfully there are sunset provisions in it - due in part to people like Obama. I also understand why he went the way he did on that. This kind of leads to my next answer.....

Just because you have some terrible policies, doesn't mean you should ignore the other good ones. No one will ever fit into anyone else's political mold. Humans are not that simple.

yeah, but Obama's policies that are good are on a much smaller scale than his terrible ones are. Sorry but compromises is one thing. But Obama's "compromise" on the PATRIOT ACT, and on FISA, is bullshit.

If you've never seen the plan, how do you know what's in it? He said he isn't going to ban (i.e. outlaw) private security firms like Blackwater. It's use will be under presidential discretion.

That's not true. He never mentioned withdrawal of Blackwater or other mercenary armies...
"Obama does not plan to sign on to legislation that seeks to ban the use of these forces in US war zones by January 2009." Also, "Obama's broader Iraq withdrawal plan provides for some US troops to remain in Iraq--how many his advisers won't say."

I haven't heard anything about reparations, but my guess is neither he nor McCain, nor Nader (snicker) will, as president, go around Iraq handing out checks to it's citizens.

Actually, Nader has spoken about reparations to the Iraqi people. whether you heard about it or not, I could care less, but it is true. also, calling reparations "go[ing] around Iraq handing out checks" is pretty juvenile...

And, if he doesn't have any plans to legitimize the Iraqi government, what the hell was he doing meeting with al Maliki - you know, the Iraqi Prime Minister who actually agrees with Obama's Iraq plan?

al Maliki's government is not legitimate and does not accurately represent the views of the Iraqi people.

The quotes were to signify the overall opinion of many people on this board that Obama wants nothing more than to blow the shit out of Tehran. Think Dr. Evil quoting the word "Laser."

The overall opinion on this board? I'm sure you would know, right? No one said Obama wants nothing more than to do that.

No, he's not taking millitary options off the table - no president would.

Nader would. That's why he'd make a better president than Obama. Shocking, I know.

And, yes, it makes sense to have diplomatic talks. Sanctions are part of diplomacy, like it or not. When you negotiate, you don't just take "no" for an answer.

sanctions are not part of diplomacy, sanctions are an act of war.

It's "illegal" (a funny word in international relations, if you ask me) for Iran to produce nuclear weapons.

Nice try, but he called the actual nuclear program "illegal"... spinning words here won't help Obama.

A peaceful nuclear program requires international supervision, I believe. I'm pretty sure Iran doesn't like that idea. And, Obama has said that Iran is not a threat to our shores; however, they could be a threat to Isreal. Ahmadinejad has said as much.

Iran has cooperated with IAEA more than any other nation, and they are signatories on the NPT, something countries like Israel, our "closest ally" refuses to do. Oh, and, you're spinning words again... "could be a threat to Israel"?? No, he said they ARE a threat to Israel, a GRAVE threat. which is incorrect, and please tell me where Ahmadinejad has said "hi everyone, just wanted you guys to know that we are a threat to Israel. have a nice day."

I'd say more than that matters. All or nothing gets you nothing almost every time. Obama from 2004:
"I think that the death penalty is appropriate in certain circumstances. There are especially heinous crimes: terrorism, the harm of children. Obviously, we've had some problems in this state in the application of the death penalty. That's why a moratorium was put in place and that's why I was so proud to be one of the leaders in overhauling a death penalty system that was broken. We became the first in the nation requiring the video taping of capital interrogations and confessions. We have to have this ultimate sanction in certain circumstances where the whole community says "this is beyond the pale."

which means he is NOT against the death penalty. being FOR the death penalty in "certain cases" still means you are FOR the death penalty.

Works for me - especially coming from a presidential candidate.
I didn't ignore what you said about Israel/Palestine - I simply chose not to answer it.

...which means you ignored it, lol...

My opinion is that both sides are to blame for their own problems. Any brokered peace between the two sides will require working with both sides.

both sides are to blame, ok, that's cute and all, but guess what-- Obama WON'T be working with both sides!! He refuses to talk to Hamas, the legitimate, democratically elected government. Oh, and did you hear about giving ALL of Jerusalem to Israel? something even Bush won't do?! oh, and lest we forget him blaming the Palestinians for their suffering.

This includes the "much reviled" Isreal - who, like it or not, is one of our allies. A lot of people seem to forget that, while at the same time condemn Bush for ignoring the "international community", i.e. our "other allies." I guess everyone has their favorite allies.

Just because Israel is our ally, you think Obama should let them get away with torturing, killing, stealing land, etc, from the Palestinians?

ok.

RainDog

_outlaw wrote:

yeah, but Obama's policies that are good are on a much smaller scale than his terrible ones are. Sorry but compromises is one thing. But Obama's "compromise" on the PATRIOT ACT, and on FISA, is bullshit.

in your opinion.

_outlaw wrote:

That's not true. He never mentioned withdrawal of Blackwater or other mercenary armies...
"Obama does not plan to sign on to legislation that seeks to ban the use of these forces in US war zones by January 2009." Also, "Obama's broader Iraq withdrawal plan provides for some US troops to remain in Iraq--how many his advisers won't say."

None of that contradicts what I wrote. He did not sign on to the ban on Blackwater - i.e. Blackwater's use will be Presidential discretion. I don't find anything wrong with the second quote, either - though it's quite out of context. Obama's plan calls for some security in the area and for U.S. troops to train Iraqi troops.

_outlaw wrote:

Actually, Nader has spoken about reparations to the Iraqi people. whether you heard about it or not, I could care less, but it is true. also, calling reparations "go[ing] around Iraq handing out checks" is pretty juvenile...

You're right, I'm not paying much attention to Nader this time around. He might have mentioned reparations - but no one else has. All sound and fury, signifying nothing.

_outlaw wrote:

al Maliki's government is not legitimate and does not accurately represent the views of the Iraqi people.

Says _outlaw. How is it not legitimate? Which Iraqi people does it not represent the views of? 'Cause, you know, there is no government in the world that represents the views of every last citizen in it's country. None. Ever.

_outlaw wrote:

The overall opinion on this board? I'm sure you would know, right? No one said Obama wants nothing more than to do that.

Not the overall opinion on this board, but the overall opinion of Obama's Iran stance held by some on this board. Basically, and I have seen this a lot from some people here, if Obama mentions Iran, it isn't long before someone says "see, he wants to invade."

_outlaw wrote:

Nader would. That's why he'd make a better president than Obama. Shocking, I know.

Here you and I disagree (shocking, I know). Nader would not make a better president than Obama. Too ideological.

_outlaw wrote:

sanctions are not part of diplomacy, sanctions are an act of war.

Sanctions are the "threat." All diplomacy involves some sort of "threat" - a "if you do (or don't do) this, I do (or don't do) that."

_outlaw wrote:

Nice try, but he called the actual nuclear program "illegal"... spinning words here won't help Obama.

Many believe that the nuclear program is a weaponized program. But I will agree with you to an extent - "illegal" is a funny word when used in international relations (i.e. the nuclear program is illegal; this war is illegal, etc.).

_outlaw wrote:

Iran has cooperated with IAEA more than any other nation, and they are signatories on the NPT, something countries like Israel, our "closest ally" refuses to do. Oh, and, you're spinning words again... "could be a threat to Israel"?? No, he said they ARE a threat to Israel, a GRAVE threat. which is incorrect, and please tell me where Ahmadinejad has said "hi everyone, just wanted you guys to know that we are a threat to Israel. have a nice day."

He refuses to acknowledge the existance of Isreal and has called for the destruction of it's government (sorta the same things we said about Saddam's Iraq - and we all know where that led). You can legitimately view that as a threat. Or not. Opinion, I suppose.

_outlaw wrote:

which means he is NOT against the death penalty. being FOR the death penalty in "certain cases" still means you are FOR the death penalty.

....in certain cases. Don't forget that part. All or nothing almost always gets you nothing.

_outlaw wrote:

...which means you ignored it, lol...

both sides are to blame, ok, that's cute and all, but guess what-- Obama WON'T be working with both sides!! He refuses to talk to Hamas, the legitimate, democratically elected government. Oh, and did you hear about giving ALL of Jerusalem to Israel? something even Bush won't do?! oh, and lest we forget him blaming the Palestinians for their suffering.

Just because Israel is our ally, you think Obama should let them get away with torturing, killing, stealing land, etc, from the Palestinians?

ok.

So Jerusalem will remain the way it is, right (disputes aside, all of Jerusalem is under Israeli control)? That probably is the easiest way to go - provided that the Palestinians have access to their holy sites. Divided cities just don't work, in my opinion. Look at Berlin.

He said that he wouldn't meet with Hamas until Hamas recognizes Israel. Sounds like a negotiation to me. Hamas's position is that Israel 'goes away.' Is that yours?

fuck

RainDog wrote:

None of that contradicts what I wrote. He did not sign on to the ban on Blackwater - i.e. Blackwater's use will be Presidential discretion. I don't find anything wrong with the second quote, either - though it's quite out of context. Obama's plan calls for some security in the area and for U.S. troops to train Iraqi troops.

It does contradict what you wrote. Blackwater will continue to have a presence in Iraq, and his campaign spokesperson said it would be atleast 2 years, if not more, before Blackwater pulls out. Being use at the "president's discretion" is quite different than them maintaining a presence in Iraq... oh, and the quote was not out of context, and if you don't find anything wrong with keeping toops in Iraq, then why not just vote for McCain?

You're right, I'm not paying much attention to Nader this time around. He might have mentioned reparations - but no one else has. All sound and fury, signifying nothing.

what are you talking about?

Says _outlaw. How is it not legitimate? Which Iraqi people does it not represent the views of? 'Cause, you know, there is no government in the world that represents the views of every last citizen in it's country. None. Ever.

says many prominent people, including historians and political analysts. look it up for yourself, it does not represent the majority of the Iraqi people's views.

Not the overall opinion on this board, but the overall opinion of Obama's Iran stance held by some on this board. Basically, and I have seen this a lot from some people here, if Obama mentions Iran, it isn't long before someone says "see, he wants to invade."

keeping military options on the table, calling them a threat (while we threaten them, ironic?), and calling their nuclear program "illegal" does not hint to "let's go grab a coffee and talk about how we can make this better"... but no one says "look Obama just wants to bomb the shit out Tehran for fun"...

Here you and I disagree (shocking, I know). Nader would not make a better president than Obama. Too ideological.

ideological? you mean because he has policies that would cause some SERIOUS change, not bullshit repackaged and called "compromises"?

ok.

Sanctions are the "threat." All diplomacy involves some sort of "threat" - a "if you do (or don't do) this, I do (or don't do) that."

wrong. he's pushing for sanctions, BEFORE he "threatens" them. Military option is the "threat." Obama hasn't even talked to Ahmadinejad and he is calling for sanctions.

oh, and what's the logic in THREATENING the nation that we see as a threat??

Many believe that the nuclear program is a weaponized program.

with no proof. the only people who "believe" that have ulterior motives.

But I will agree with you to an extent - "illegal" is a funny word when used in international relations (i.e. the nuclear program is illegal; this war is illegal, etc.).

not funny. it's incorrect. wrong. a lie.

He refuses to acknowledge the existance of Isreal and has called for the destruction of it's government.

wrong. he refuses to acknowledge the RIGHT for Israel to existence in its current occupation of Palestinian land. and he didn't call for the "destruction of it's government." that's a lie.

....in certain cases. Don't forget that part. All or nothing almost always gets you nothing.

certain cases means shit. if you agree with the death penalty in "certain cases", you STILL AGREE WITH THE DEATH PENALTY.

So Jerusalem will remain the way it is, right (disputes aside, all of Jerusalem is under Israeli control)? That probably is the easiest way to go - provided that the Palestinians have access to their holy sites. Divided cities just don't work, in my opinion. Look at Berlin.

East Jerusalem is occupied by the Israeli government, although every single country in the world - except for the U.S. - has condemned it. In fact, even Bush's U.S. doesn't think it's possible for a solution without Israel giving up East Jerusalem. It is not the easiest way to go to give Israel all of Jerusalem. why not give it all to the Palestinians? It won't solve anything. Obama is going against the entire world, even BUSH, and is granting Israel everything they want. Ridiculous.

He said that he wouldn't meet with Hamas until Hamas recognizes Israel. Sounds like a negotiation to me. Hamas's position is that Israel 'goes away.' Is that yours?

Again, it's until Hamas renounces violence and recognizes Israel's RIGHT to exist, which is pretty hard, considering Israel is occupying Palestinian land, killing their people, implementing a blockade that gets virtually nothing into Gaza, etc... Hamas' position is not that Israel 'goes away', that's just bullshit made up from the media. Hamas wants what the entire world wants - for Israel to withdraw to the '67 borders. what's your position, I wonder? Is it the same as your man's, or do you agree with every prominent political scientist, historian, politician in the world?

RainDog

_outlaw wrote:

It does contradict what you wrote. Blackwater will continue to have a presence in Iraq, and his campaign spokesperson said it would be atleast 2 years, if not more, before Blackwater pulls out. Being use at the "president's discretion" is quite different than them maintaining a presence in Iraq... oh, and the quote was not out of context, and if you don't find anything wrong with keeping toops in Iraq, then why not just vote for McCain?

what are you talking about?

says many prominent people, including historians and political analysts. look it up for yourself, it does not represent the majority of the Iraqi people's views.

keeping military options on the table, calling them a threat (while we threaten them, ironic?), and calling their nuclear program "illegal" does not hint to "let's go grab a coffee and talk about how we can make this better"... but no one says "look Obama just wants to bomb the shit out Tehran for fun"...

ideological? you mean because he has policies that would cause some SERIOUS change, not bullshit repackaged and called "compromises"?

ok.

wrong. he's pushing for sanctions, BEFORE he "threatens" them. Military option is the "threat." Obama hasn't even talked to Ahmadinejad and he is calling for sanctions.

oh, and what's the logic in THREATENING the nation that we see as a threat??

with no proof. the only people who "believe" that have ulterior motives.

not funny. it's incorrect. wrong. a lie.

wrong. he refuses to acknowledge the RIGHT for Israel to existence in its current occupation of Palestinian land. and he didn't call for the "destruction of it's government." that's a lie.

certain cases means shit. if you agree with the death penalty in "certain cases", you STILL AGREE WITH THE DEATH PENALTY.

East Jerusalem is occupied by the Israeli government, although every single country in the world - except for the U.S. - has condemned it. In fact, even Bush's U.S. doesn't think it's possible for a solution without Israel giving up East Jerusalem. It is not the easiest way to go to give Israel all of Jerusalem. why not give it all to the Palestinians? It won't solve anything. Obama is going against the entire world, even BUSH, and is granting Israel everything they want. Ridiculous.

Again, it's until Hamas renounces violence and recognizes Israel's RIGHT to exist, which is pretty hard, considering Israel is occupying Palestinian land, killing their people, implementing a blockade that gets virtually nothing into Gaza, etc... Hamas' position is not that Israel 'goes away', that's just bullshit made up from the media. Hamas wants what the entire world wants - for Israel to withdraw to the '67 borders. what's your position, I wonder? Is it the same as your man's, or do you agree with every prominent political scientist, historian, politician in the world?

Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

I'll leave you to your McCain campaign. I have a job to keep.

fuck

RainDog wrote:

Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

I'll leave you to your McCain campaign. I have a job to keep.

"No comment" would have been just fine, but ok.

Mrs.Vedder78

TiaMija wrote:

The whole world is looking to the next American president to provide some hope. Our next president will have much to do to restore the world's faith in America.

I believe that Mr. Obama can provide that to us all.

I have to agree with this....

fuck

Mrs_Vedder78 wrote:

I have to agree with this....

that's fine, but:
- Obama voted for the PATRIOT ACT and FISA
- Obama sees Iran as a threat and is keeping military options on the table, as well as pushing for tougher sanctions
- Obama has complete support for Israel and blames the Palestinians' suffering on Palestinians
- Obama supports to continue the war in Afghanistan
- Obama will keep mercenary armies like Blackwater in Iraq for atleast a few more years
- Obama does not mention restoring anything to the Iraqi people
- Obama is not against the death penalty

where do you see any hope in him?? what has he said that contradicts or excuses what I wrote above?